Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

And how do you think UBC are going to help that ? They're not going to make you magically able to know where every gun is, especially with the nearly 300 million guns already in circulation.

With mandatory UBC only the people that don't mind breaking the law would sell guns to criminals, and as such it would be very easy to detect with undercover agents, and law enforcement would actually be able to catch them without using extreme amount of resources used.

As it is now you can't determine the "good" sellers from the "bad" sellers.

[Porcell]

I mean seriously, people complain there is a loop hole that lets people purchase an AR15 without a background check and you guys focus on the word loop hole and then have the gall to accuse them of not focusing on actual issues?

What the fuck is that?

Because if you state it like actual-facts; "People complain that it is legal to purchase an AR15 without a background check." When you state it that way, the only response is... uh, so? But you throw Loophole in there and you are implying that something unethical is going on.

[Tinykong]

Better than the opposite. People will always have access to firearms, and sometimes people will be injured or die from firearms, so let's eliminate all laws and regulations regarding firearms.

Adding more layers of legislation to a system that doesn't work isn't the answer. New legislation that does work is the answer.

[tombstoner139]

Better than the opposite. People will always have access to firearms, and sometimes people will be injured or die from firearms, so let's eliminate all laws and regulations regarding firearms.

Or the weapons themselves.

From time to time i like to point out that smart people will always have access to firearms if they so choose. NO law or regulation will change that.
when you combine smart with criminal you get an armed criminal if he or she so wishes.... all this arguing about a loop whole is silly. The apex form of this is to make your own firearm. This is why people who dont know any better freaked out over 3d firearms.

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death...statistics.php attacking its accuracy is reasonable, but the information has links provided for reference.

The people in this thread need to realize that guns are not a big deal. our food supply and daily habits are killing far more people then guns do in any given year.
unless your at war. The food being served in schools should be considered child abuse since it promotes unhealthy foods. foods that are highly processed and containing huge amounts of salt and sugar.

How many of the kids who died at sanybrook had a life expectancy shorter then there parents? just think about that when you want to ban guns because someone used a tool incorrectly. where should you really be focusing your vitriol.

[Daelak]

Adding more layers of legislation to a system that doesn't work isn't the answer. New legislation that does work is the answer.

Then what would gun rights advocates say about restricting gun production on gun makers? This would be a supply-side solution.

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 05:32 PM ----------

Or the weapons themselves.

From time to time i like to point out that smart people will always have access to firearms if they so choose. NO law or regulation will change that.
when you combine smart with criminal you get an armed criminal if he or she so wishes.... all this arguing about a loop whole is silly. The apex form of this is to make your own firearm. This is why people who dont know any better freaked out over 3d firearms.

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death...statistics.php attacking its accuracy is reasonable, but the information has links provided for reference.

The people in this thread need to realize that guns are not a big deal. our food supply and daily habits are killing far more people then guns do in any given year.
unless your at war. The food being served in schools should be considered child abuse since it promotes unhealthy foods. foods that are highly processed and containing huge amounts of salt and sugar.

How many of the kids who died at sanybrook had a life expectancy shorter then there parents? just think about that when you want to ban guns because someone used a tool incorrectly. where should you really be focusing your vitriol.

Vitriol? I have said nothing vitriolic, and yes heart disease kill more people than firearms do, but they are American Citizens and they have the equal right to redress their grievances as you do.

[Deleted]

Then what would gun rights advocates say about restricting gun production on gun makers? This would be a supply-side solution.

Because restricting a big industry when the economy already is in the shitter and unemployment is high is a good idea, right ?

[Tinykong]

Then what would gun rights advocates say about restricting gun production on gun makers? This would be a supply-side solution.

So, limit the amount of illegal guns in circulation by limiting the amount of legal firearms being produced and put into circulation?

That's totally asinine.

[Gemini Sunrise]

So, limit the amount of illegal guns in circulation by limiting the amount of legal firearms being produced and put into circulation?

That's totally asinine.

It follows, somewhat. A good deal of guns in the hands of criminals are stolen. Though it reeks of "Let's cure the cancer by chopping off the head of the person!" thinking.

[Daelak]

Because restricting a big industry when the economy already is in the shitter and unemployment is high is a good idea, right ?

You are assuming all firearms in America are made in America. Quick, what's the best selling pistol?

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 05:58 PM ----------

So, limit the amount of illegal guns in circulation by limiting the amount of legal firearms being produced and put into circulation?

That's totally asinine.

Makes sense, legal gun owners would take care of their guns and keep scheduled maintenance, gang-bangers and drug runners would let their weapons go into disrepair.

[Kujako]

It follows, somewhat. A good deal of guns in the hands of criminals are stolen. Though it reeks of "Let's cure the cancer by chopping off the head of the person!" thinking.

The ATF says that the "stolen" guns seem to mostly come from a small percentage of the dealers, but they are prevented by law from looking into it or keeping records that could back up their claim. (shrug)

[Porcell]

You are assuming all firearms in America are made in America. Quick, what's the best selling pistol?

There is, of course, way more to the firearm industry than merely the manufacturers, between the accessories and the gun shops / ranges.
I assume by your question about best selling pistol you are referring to Glocks. Besides Austria, they also manufacture Glocks in Georgia. Smith & Wesson is a US company. Ruger is a US company. Beretta is Italian but my Px4 Storm Subcompact was made in Tennessee. There are a lot of firearms manufacturers in the US.

[Eroginous]

I'll totally disagree with you, and I think I'm right on this one. The difference is that once your collection is gone, it's not replaced by more guns to be sold again. It's not a business at all.
If I want to get rid of a collection, just because I have 100 Porcelain Dolls for sale in my garage sale doesn't mean I'm in the business of selling Porcelain Dolls.

There are businesses out there that don't even stock 100 of any one item. You go to your local Walmart, and there aren't even 100 guns at their gun counter.

Where exactly do you draw the line between an FFL selling 100 guns as part of their inventory, and someone selling 100 guns from their 'private collection?' The common sense answer (and most likely legal answer), would lie within the amount of guns being sold. Obviously if I have a 100 gun collection and I want to sell off a couple of them, I could take those two guns (pistol and a rifle, let's say for simplicity) down to a gun show, find some guy willing to buy them (whether it's an FFL or a private citizen), and we can do business no problem.

I'm not technically dealing guns or in the business of dealing them.

But as soon as I bring down my 100 gun collection and setup a table, it's incredibly OBVIOUS that I am turning my private collection into a business venture for profit. Whether it is a sustained business venture is irrelevant. That would be a red flag for any under cover ATF to investigate, and if I start showing up at different gun shows until my 100 gun collection is gone, how is that not being engaged in the business of dealing guns?

A drug dealer who buys a quarter pound of marijuana, only sells that quarter pound, and does not continue to sell drugs, is still a drug dealer, especially while he's working through his quarter pound. That's enough to convict him for 20 years. I find it odd that a private citizen with a large collection of guns for sale would not be treated like a gun dealer.

That said, I could be wrong when it comes to the legality of such a situation. I would then have to agree with a change to the legal definition of the term 'dealer.'

No, it doesn't always make sense to enforce laws more.

Are you insane? What's the purpose of criminalizing a particular behavior, and having laws on the books to provide a legal method of dealing with people behaving that way, if you aren't going to actually enforce the law?

The current laws don't have the wanted effect

Only if they aren't being enforced in the first place. Enforce the laws and *presto.* Desired effect.

if one can bypass them, any additional enforcement would just push the activity in the direction of the loophole

1. There is no loophole.

2. Not every person looking to buy a gun is going to fail a background check. Not every person looking to buy a gun is going to just go find a private sale if they DO fail a background check. There are a finite number of guns in circulation at any given time, most of which are probably not available for purchase (I would imagine). The idea that someone is just going to go down to his local illegal gun dealer and pickup a firearm because laws are actually being enforced, is pretty ridiculous. Some people might do that, and they are already breaking existing laws. You can legally investigate, apprehend, and criminally charge those people.

thus the enforcement only manages to switch the activity from one place to another place, which is a gigantic waste of tax payer money.

I don't understand how it is a waste of time to investigate and apprehend people participating in criminal behavior.

Unless the behavior isn't actually criminal...

The loophole needs to be closed, so it's either illegal or legal and not illegal in some cases and legal in some cases and the whole thing is a massive clusterfuck.

You might be confused, but the law is not. There is already a clearly defined set of laws indicating what is legal and what is illegal. That's why a number of us keep pointing out to you that your hypothetical scenarios are already illegal under current laws, and someone can be arrested and prosecuted for those activities. If people are already breaking the law, and law enforcement is ignoring it, what makes you think they will enforce a new law? Because it's new and shiny? Because it has a cool acronym?

Sometimes I really wonder if gun control advocates just want another reason to pat themselves on the back...

Let me ask you this, if you are a police investigator how would you charge me if I did the following?

You would be investigated for illegal arms dealing, and depending on the evidence gathered, convicted of a felony punishable by up to life in prison. Sorry, but you don't get to pass off a blatant violation of the law as 'legal' because you don't understand the difference between being a private citizen and someone engaged in the business of selling firearms.

The only way I could imagine is through silly levels of survilance that would cost the tax payers millions of dollars to stop one guy. With a universal background check you could simply send in an undercover agent to buy a gun, if no background check is done you can easily convict him of facilitating to spread guns to criminals.

The amount of investigation and surveillance involved with catching and prosecuting someone would be the exact same regardless of whether or not a background check is required. In case you've forgotten, there are already a number of people who are breaking the law by attempting to purchase firearms as a convicted felon or a fugitive. In case you've forgotten, less than .01% of those people are ever investigated or prosecuted for that crime.

I really don't think you understand the problem lack of law enforcement creates.

So people circumvent the law via this not-a-loophole (for all of you people who spent the last two pages tying up the argument with whether or not it is or is not a loophole because you can't actually address the issue at hand)

No one is circumventing anything. A private citizen is not a business, and a business is not a private citizen. The laws requiring gun businesses to do background checks do not have anything to do with private citizens. Instead, the law is written in such a way that a private citizen is legally allowed to sell his firearm to someone else without a background check. No circumvention is necessary. It's not a loophole, the law is intentionally written that way because businesses and private citizens are completely and totally different.

What is this solution? You push enforcement and you push the illegal dealers into black hole that is private sales, where it's hard to determine wether a guy is selling legal or illegal guns. I'm all for a solution that works without hindering law abiding citizens, but I don't think there is one, as such I don't see why law abiding citizens shouldn't be liable for their actions just like law abiding citizens are when they give away alcohol to young people that may be underage.

If you push for more law enforcement, the end result is that more people who are breaking the law are prosecuted and it becomes riskier to engage in such behavior. Law abiding citizens are always liable for their actions. The difference is whether or not we define something as criminal behavior. Currently, it is not criminal behavior for a private citizen to sell a gun without a background check.

Unless you can think of a good reason to make that behavior criminal, there really isn't a reason to do so.

Calling someone a criminal does not a criminal make.

[Deleted]

If someone owns a million guns in a private collection, and decides to sell them to other citizens, is he considered a private seller or a business seller? I don't get how you can't see that there is no way to determine wether a guy is a private seller or a business seller aside from wether or not it is primary income, which is a dumb measurement, as rich people can earn millions off other activities.

[Svifnymr]

With mandatory UBC only the people that don't mind breaking the law would sell guns to criminals, and as such it would be very easy to detect with undercover agents, and law enforcement would actually be able to catch them without using extreme amount of resources used.

As it is now you can't determine the "good" sellers from the "bad" sellers.

Currently, it's illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a person that is prohibited from purchasing. If you have someone that is repeatedly selling guns without a care for who they go to, the sting is obvious. You record the guy knowingly selling to someone that has admitted they are prohibited from buying one. The thing is, there has to be some reason to draw the attention to set up the sting. This discussion has been primarily about people that repeatedly set up in a public place (flea market, gun show) to sells guns they have purchased for that purpose. So a simple review to see who repeatedly is at these public venues with a changing inventory of firearms and is not a licensed dealer would not involve much.

Separate from that, you have this supposition that there are these illegal dealers buying guns from new retail, then turning around and selling them as part of their livelihood. These guns are easily traced and would easily get the person for falsifying the original purchase document (which specifies they are not for resale), as well as the aforementioned "illegal dealer" and "selling to a prohibited person".

The other-other discussion is whether a UBC can work without full registration. If the dealer is dealing in used guns, buying them and reselling them for profit without background checks, then you'd have to have registration in order to mandate where the gun is NOW, in order to enforce a restriction on where it is going later.

The main thing here is the cost to the law abiding to follow the laws that are intended to hinder the illegal dealer on one hand, and whether it would actually hinder these illegal dealers.

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 03:33 PM ----------

If someone owns a million guns in a private collection, and decides to sell them to other citizens, is he considered a private seller or a business seller? I don't get how you can't see that there is no way to determine wether a guy is a private seller or a business seller aside from wether or not it is primary income, which is a dumb measurement, as rich people can earn millions off other activities.

It's the repetition, are you buying guns for resale or is it a liquidation of existing "inventory". It also depends on circumstances, of course. I've helped 2 people that inherited large collections and needed to whittle them down. Sales were done via dealers to protect the people from liability and ensure everything went well.

If either of these people had decided to set up a table at a local show, the guns would have been a dwindling supply. ATFE could ask questions and be told "bugger off" which would hopefully lead to further investigating, or the seller would give a quick explanation.

Mind you, as I've mentioned before, some counties in Florida (tri-county are of Dade/Broward/PalmBeach and some others) HAVE the "no private sales at gun shows". If a transaction occurs at a gun show, the buyer must have either a state issued concealed weapons license (which has a background check, naturally) or the sale must occur through a dealer. So sellers that want to comply with the law, do so. Those that do not want to comply with the law, meet elsewhere. This is why I called it a "Go Outside" law.

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 03:40 PM ----------

You are assuming all firearms in America are made in America. Quick, what's the best selling pistol?

A lot of manufacturers have split manufacturing, it's just economically easier to build here than build elsewhere and ship here. It's like cars with steering wheels on the left side. We're the main ones that use them, so they're mostly built closer to here.

For the record, there are actually quite a few firearm import laws that do not apply to USA manufacturers, some of them quite stupid, IMO. You can't import any rifle that accepts a high capacity magazine for example, and you can't import handguns that are too small.

Makes sense, legal gun owners would take care of their guns and keep scheduled maintenance, gang-bangers and drug runners would let their weapons go into disrepair.

Gang bangers generally use the cheapest models available, which is good since they suck so much. Tec-9's were all the rage until Feinstein got her wish and ran them out of business, but since they were horrible guns that jammed repeatedly, the switch to cheap AK style guns (that actually work reliabily, if not accurately) by gangs was probably worse.

Obviously the ideal solution would be that they had nothing, just as the ideal solution would be to just get rid of gangs, I'm not really debating a point here, just saying stuff.

[PhaelixWW]

With mandatory UBC only the people that don't mind breaking the law would sell guns to criminals, and as such it would be very easy to detect with undercover agents, and law enforcement would actually be able to catch them without using extreme amount of resources used.

Heh. Let's take this logic out for a spin, shall we?

With anti-drug laws only the people that don't mind breaking the law would sell drugs to criminals, and as such it would be very easy to detect with undercover agents, and law enforcement would actually be able to catch them without using extreme amount of resources used.

Nope. Definitely sounds ridiculous.

I'm flabbergasted by the idea that you think that trying to make shady deals into shadier deals will make it easy to stop. The war on drugs would like to disagree with that logic.

[Deleted]

Currently, it's illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a person that is prohibited from purchasing. If you have someone that is repeatedly selling guns without a care for who they go to, the sting is obvious. You record the guy knowingly selling to someone that has admitted they are prohibited from buying one. The thing is, there has to be some reason to draw the attention to set up the sting. This discussion has been primarily about people that repeatedly set up in a public place (flea market, gun show) to sells guns they have purchased for that purpose. So a simple review to see who repeatedly is at these public venues with a changing inventory of firearms and is not a licensed dealer would not involve much.

Separate from that, you have this supposition that there are these illegal dealers buying guns from new retail, then turning around and selling them as part of their livelihood. These guns are easily traced and would easily get the person for falsifying the original purchase document (which specifies they are not for resale), as well as the aforementioned "illegal dealer" and "selling to a prohibited person".

The other-other discussion is whether a UBC can work without full registration. If the dealer is dealing in used guns, buying them and reselling them for profit without background checks, then you'd have to have registration in order to mandate where the gun is NOW, in order to enforce a restriction on where it is going later.

The main thing here is the cost to the law abiding to follow the laws that are intended to hinder the illegal dealer on one hand, and whether it would actually hinder these illegal dealers.

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 03:33 PM ----------



It's the repetition, are you buying guns for resale or is it a liquidation of existing "inventory". It also depends on circumstances, of course. I've helped 2 people that inherited large collections and needed to whittle them down. Sales were done via dealers to protect the people from liability and ensure everything went well.

If either of these people had decided to set up a table at a local show, the guns would have been a dwindling supply. ATFE could ask questions and be told "bugger off" which would hopefully lead to further investigating, or the seller would give a quick explanation.

Mind you, as I've mentioned before, some counties in Florida (tri-county are of Dade/Broward/PalmBeach and some others) HAVE the "no private sales at gun shows". If a transaction occurs at a gun show, the buyer must have either a state issued concealed weapons license (which has a background check, naturally) or the sale must occur through a dealer. So sellers that want to comply with the law, do so. Those that do not want to comply with the law, meet elsewhere. This is why I called it a "Go Outside" law.

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 03:40 PM ----------


A lot of manufacturers have split manufacturing, it's just economically easier to build here than build elsewhere and ship here. It's like cars with steering wheels on the left side. We're the main ones that use them, so they're mostly built closer to here.

For the record, there are actually quite a few firearm import laws that do not apply to USA manufacturers, some of them quite stupid, IMO. You can't import any rifle that accepts a high capacity magazine for example, and you can't import handguns that are too small.



Gang bangers generally use the cheapest models available, which is good since they suck so much. Tec-9's were all the rage until Feinstein got her wish and ran them out of business, but since they were horrible guns that jammed repeatedly, the switch to cheap AK style guns (that actually work reliabily, if not accurately) by gangs was probably worse.

Obviously the ideal solution would be that they had nothing, just as the ideal solution would be to just get rid of gangs, I'm not really debating a point here, just saying stuff.

There's no requirement to ask wether the guy has a clean background, and even then you're putting your faith in his word. I somehow doubt someone with a criminal history trying to get access to a gun is going to be honest (at least not the 2nd time he tries).

Also you didn't say how you could define a business seller from a private seller. There are no records, there is no nothing, if you wanted you could buy large collections and sell them away by just answering the ATFE that you have a aqquired a large collection at home with several thousand of guns (which is legal!).

All I have to say is good luck to the law enforcement that has to catch these illegal gun sellers that are hiding in the shadow of the legal private sales. Unless the seller is dumb it's virtually impossible to catch him.

[PhaelixWW]

All I have to say is good luck to the law enforcement that has to catch these illegal gun sellers that are hiding in the shadow of the legal private sales. Unless the seller is dumb it's virtually impossible to catch him.

And yet you think that a UBC law would somehow force these illegal sellers to comply? How? Why?

I mean, I support a UBC law because... why not. But I don't have any illusions about how much of a beneficial effect it would have.

[Deleted]

And yet you think that a UBC law would somehow force these illegal sellers to comply? How? Why?

I mean, I support a UBC law because... why not. But I don't have any illusions about how much of a beneficial effect it would have.

Because with mandatory UBC you could actually distinguish the good sellers from the bad sellers? As it is now it's impossible to distinguish the two apart, stupidity aside, as it is now it's very hard to get caught if you do it right. If you could distinguish them they would stand out and be at higher risk of getting caught and as such fewer people would do it, and fewer sellers means less supply, which means increased price, which means lower demand.

[PhaelixWW]

Because with mandatory UBC you could actually distinguish the good sellers from the bad sellers? As it is now it's impossible to distinguish the two apart, stupidity aside, as it is now it's very hard to get caught if you do it right. If you could distinguish them they would stand out and be at higher risk of getting caught and as such fewer people would do it, and fewer sellers means less supply, which means increased price, which means lower demand.

And how exactly would you distinguish the bad seller? How would you even know a bad sale had occurred? Would he wear a sign? Post about it on facebook?

Would you know about the bad seller because you trace a gun used in a crime to him? What if he claims that it was stolen instead of being sold?

Once again, I don't know why you think that a UBC is a magic solution to illegal sales. People lie about shit. They already do. That won't change just because there's a UBC.

[Deleted]

Bad seller = knowly would sell guns to criminals.
Good Seller = knowly would not sell guns to criminals.

If you preform a background check and the background check shows that the involved person is a criminal the good seller would refuse to sell his gun and the bad seller would sell the gun regardless.

Send out undercover agents to buy guns -> preform UBC with criminal history -> Catch bad sellers
Law enforcement made simple! As it is now you have establish patterns, check IRS statements, and the guy has to fuck up to get caught, needless to say it seems pretty easy to evade the intent of the law if you do it the right way *cough cough* loophole *cough cough*

I don't understand how you can't see that even the small pieces can matter in the big picture. It might not eliminate the problem, but i'm quite sure it would reduce the problem (evil people getting access to guns and killing good people). And no this isn't the magic solution that will fix it all, but it's a start. Doing nothing or increasing law enforcement to combat an already broken law that will just switch resources from one place to another, in either case you will gain absolutely nothing.